DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuremberg Icj Timeline 1474-1868

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nuremberg Icj Timeline 1474-1868 NUREMBERG ICJ TIMELINE 1474-1868 1474 Trial of Peter von Hagenbach In connection with offenses committed while governing ter- ritory in the Upper Alsace region on behalf of the Duke of 1625 Hugo Grotius Publishes On the Law of Burgundy, Peter von Hagenbach is tried and sentenced to death War and Peace by an ad hoc tribunal of twenty-eight judges representing differ- ent local polities. The crimes charged, including murder, mass Dutch jurist and philosopher Hugo Grotius, one of the principal rape and the planned extermination of the citizens of Breisach, founders of international law with such works as Mare Liberum are characterized by the prosecution as “trampling under foot (On the Freedom of the Seas), publishes De Jure Belli ac Pacis the laws of God and man.” Considered history’s first interna- (On the Law of War and Peace). Considered his masterpiece, tional war crimes trial, it is noted for rejecting the defense of the book elucidates and secularizes the topic of just war, includ- superior orders and introducing an embryonic version of crimes ing analysis of belligerent status, adequate grounds for initiating against humanity. war and procedures to be followed in the inception, conduct, and conclusion of war. 1758 Emerich de Vattel Lays Foundation for Formulating Crime of Aggression In his seminal treatise The Law of Nations, Swiss jurist Emerich de Vattel alludes to the great guilt of a sovereign who under- 1815 Declaration Relative to the Universal takes an “unjust war” because he is “chargeable with all the Abolition of the Slave Trade evils, all the horrors of the war: all the effusion of blood, the The first international instrument to condemn slavery, the desolation of families, the rapine, the acts of violence, the rav- Declaration Relative to the Universal Abolition of the Slave ages, the conflagrations, are his works and his crimes . in con- Trade is issued by the Congress of Vienna to resolve issues aris- sequence of it [he] is guilty of a crime against mankind . .” De ing from the Napoleonic wars. The Declaration qualifies slavery Vattel thus provides the theoretical underpinnings for the mod- as a scourge to humanity and recalls that numerous European ern formulation of the crime of aggression. governments have either abolished the trade or resolved to do so. Subsequently, countries enter into a skein of piecemeal mul- 1856 Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law tilateral and bilateral agreements prohibiting slavery that are enforced with varying degrees of success. More effective aboli- Issued following the Crimean War, the Paris Declaration tion is realized with the 1926 Convention to Suppress the Slave Respecting Maritime Law abolishes all forms of piracy and pri- Trade and Slavery and the 1956 Supplementary Convention, vateering (government authorization of privately owned ships which together define and criminalize slavery and related to attack and capture enemy vessels during wartime). It also practices such as debt bondage and serfdom. In 2000, the provides rules for maritime neutrality and regulates the con- UN adopts the Trafficking Protocol to the Convention against duct of blockades. Transnational Organized Crime that aims to prevent and com- bat trafficking in persons, especially women and children; pro- 1863 Lieber Code tect and assist victims of trafficking; and promote cooperation among states in order to meet those objectives. During the US Civil War, German-American jurist Francis Lieber prepares for the Union Army Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, promulgated by President Lincoln in April 1863 as General Order No. 100. This document, the first codification of the laws and customs of war, 1864 First Geneva Convention lays out specific rules for protecting civilians and their property, A book about the bloody Battle of Solferino (1859) in Italy, writ- treating prisoners and enemy wounded humanely, and limiting ten by Swiss eyewitness Henri Dunant, shocks the world. It leads military targets to those that are deemed essential. to creation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (1863), and to a 16-nation conference convened in Geneva in August 1864, which adopts the Convention for the Amelioration 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field, com- monly known as the “Geneva Convention of 1864.” The Adopted at an international conference convened by Russia, Convention provides for: (1) relief to the wounded regardless the St. Petersburg Declaration prohibits “the employment of nationality; (2) neutrality/inviolability of medical personnel; of such arms” as “would uselessly aggravate the suffering of and (3) the distinctive sign of the red cross on a white ground. disabled men, or render their death inevitable” and would be The subsequent Geneva Conventions of 1906, 1929 and 1949 will “contrary to the laws of humanity.” To this end, the Declaration build on this platform. Dunant is awarded the first Nobel Peace forbids the use of certain fragmenting, explosive and incendiary Prize in 1901, sharing it with Frédéric Passy. ammunition. Created by Prof. Gregory S. Gordon for Schulberg Productions, Inc. page 1 NUREMBERG ICJ TIMELINE 1899-1928 1899 & 1907 The Hague Conventions Adopted, respectively, at 1899 and 1907 international peace con- ferences held in The Hague, Netherlands, these Conventions 1915 Allied Joint Declaration Regarding are considered the foundational treaties for the regula- the Armenian Genocide tion of the conduct of hostilities during wartime. The Hague On May 24, 1915, as the Ottoman Empire is massacring the Conventions set forth parameters regarding the means and Armenian population within its territories during World War I methods of warfare, including a ban on a number of weapons (1914-1918), France, Great Britain and Russia issue a joint decla- and methods of warfare (including use of “dum dum” bullets ration asserting that “[i]n the presence of these new crimes of which expand in the body, poison weapons, and attacks from Turkey against humanity and civilization, the allied Governments hot air balloons), categorization of prisoners of war, protection publicly inform the [Ottoman Government] that they will hold of neutral parties, occupation of territory, and rules for attacks personally responsible for the said crimes all members of the on military targets. They also take many of the principles of the Ottoman Government as well as those of its agents who are 1864 Geneva Convention and adapt them to maritime warfare. found to be involved in such massacres.” This is thought to con- Finally, they also include what is known as the “Martens Clause” stitute the first use, within an international law context, of the (drafted by Russian delegate Fyodor Martens), which embeds term “crimes against humanity.” an overarching moral code into humanitarian law by providing: “Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they re- sult from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.” 1919 Treaty of Versailles The Treaty of Versailles, signed June 28, 1919, formally ends hostilities between the Allies and Germany in the wake of World 1919 Turkish Courts Martial of Armenian War I and provides, in Article 227, for creation of an ad hoc in- Genocide Perpetrators ternational criminal tribunal to prosecute Germany’s Kaiser Following the Ottoman Empire’s defeat in World War I, a new Wilhelm II for initiating the war; and, in Article 228, for prosecu- government is formed and, in February 1919, it establishes tion of German military personnel accused of violating the laws courts martial to prosecute members of the “Young Turk” re- and customs of war. The ad hoc tribunal is never established, gime responsible for the Armenian genocide. Pursuant to these the Kaiser is never prosecuted, and only a few low-level German courts martial, a small group of lower-level officials is punished, war criminals are tried and lightly punished. but the fate of the major perpetrators is supposed to be de- cided by a treaty between the Allies and the Ottoman Empire, and they are ultimately able to evade justice. 1919 Covenant of the League of Nations The Covenant of the League of Nations is concluded as part of the Treaty of Versailles. Article 10 of the Covenant provides 1920 Treaty of Sèvres that member States will “respect and preserve as against ex- ternal aggression the territorial integrity and existing political The Treaty of Sèvres formally ends hostilities between the independence” of the other member States. Allies and the Ottoman Empire after World War I and provides for the trial by the Allies of Turkish war criminals accused of violating the laws and customs of war and of engaging in the Armenian massacres. The Treaty never enters into force and is superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), which is silent on 1921 The Leipzig Trials the issue of criminal responsibility pursuant to an accompanying Resisting Allied trials of war crimes perpetrators pursuant to Declaration of Amnesty. Versailles Treaty Article 228, the Germans agree to prosecute only a limited number of low-ranking suspects, and only under German law, in Leipzig’s Criminal Senate of the Imperial Court 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact of Germany. While the Germans permit Allied representatives On August 27, 1928, in Paris, per the initiative of US Secretary to participate as co-prosecutors, local pressure insures that of State Frank Kellogg and French Minister of Foreign Affairs only a few minor military officials are indicted, and they receive Aristide Briand, several nations sign the General Treaty for light punishments.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. ________ In the Supreme Court of the United States KHALED A. F. AL ODAH, ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI DAVID J. CYNAMON THOMAS B. WILNER MATTHEW J. MACLEAN COUNSEL OF RECORD OSMAN HANDOO NEIL H. KOSLOWE PILLSBURY WINTHROP AMANDA E. SHAFER SHAW PITTMAN LLP SHERI L. SHEPHERD 2300 N Street, N.W. SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP Washington, DC 20037 801 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 202-663-8000 Washington, DC 20004 202-508-8000 GITANJALI GUTIERREZ J. WELLS DIXON GEORGE BRENT MICKUM IV SHAYANA KADIDAL SPRIGGS & HOLLINGSWORTH CENTER FOR 1350 “I” Street N.W. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Washington, DC 20005 666 Broadway, 7th Floor 202-898-5800 New York, NY 10012 212-614-6438 Counsel for Petitioners Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover JOSEPH MARGULIES JOHN J. GIBBONS MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER LAWRENCE S. LUSTBERG NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY GIBBONS P.C. LAW SCHOOL One Gateway Center 357 East Chicago Avenue Newark, NJ 07102 Chicago, IL 60611 973-596-4500 312-503-0890 MARK S. SULLIVAN BAHER AZMY CHRISTOPHER G. KARAGHEUZOFF SETON HALL LAW SCHOOL JOSHUA COLANGELO-BRYAN CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 833 McCarter Highway 250 Park Avenue Newark, NJ 07102 New York, NY 10177 973-642-8700 212-415-9200 DAVID H. REMES MARC D. FALKOFF COVINGTON & BURLING COLLEGE OF LAW 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. NORTHERN ILLINOIS Washington, DC 20004 UNIVERSITY 202-662-5212 DeKalb, IL 60115 815-753-0660 PAMELA CHEPIGA SCOTT SULLIVAN ANDREW MATHESON DEREK JINKS KAREN LEE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SARAH HAVENS SCHOOL OF LAW ALLEN & OVERY LLP RULE OF LAW IN WARTIME 1221 Avenue of the Americas PROGRAM New York, NY 10020 727 E.
    [Show full text]
  • 16. the Nuremberg Trials: Nazi Criminals Face Justice
    fdr4freedoms 1 16. The Nuremberg Trials: Nazi Criminals Face Justice On a ship off the coast of Newfoundland in August 1941, four months before the United States entered World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt and British prime minister Winston Churchill agreed to commit themselves to “the final destruction of Nazi tyranny.” In mid-1944, as the Allied advance toward Germany progressed, another question arose: What to do with the defeated Nazis? FDR asked his War Department for a plan to bring Germany to justice, making it accountable for starting the terrible war and, in its execution, committing a string of ruthless atrocities. By mid-September 1944, FDR had two plans to consider. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. had unexpectedly presented a proposal to the president two weeks before the War Department finished its own work. The two plans could not have been more different, and a bitter contest of ideas erupted in FDR’s cabinet. To execute or prosecute? Morgenthau proposed executing major Nazi leaders as soon as they were captured, exiling other officers to isolated and barren lands, forcing German prisoners of war to rebuild war-scarred Europe, and, perhaps most controversially, Defendants and their counsel in the trial of major war criminals before the dismantling German industry in the highly developed Ruhr International Military Tribunal, November 22, 1945. The day before, all defendants and Saar regions. One of the world’s most advanced industrial had entered “not guilty” pleas and U.S. top prosecutor Robert H. Jackson had made his opening statement. “Despite the fact that public opinion already condemns economies would be left to subsist on local crops, a state their acts,” said Jackson, “we agree that here [these defendants] must be given that would prevent Germany from acting on any militaristic or a presumption of innocence, and we accept the burden of proving criminal acts and the responsibility of these defendants for their commission.” Harvard Law School expansionist impulses.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Detention
    NYSBA REPORT ON EXECUTIVE DETENTION, HABEAS CORPUS AND THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006 NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION’S COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS MAY 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY.............................................................................. 1 A. The Guantanamo Detainees....................................................................... 2 B. Report Summary ........................................................................................ 7 I. HISTORY OF HABEAS CORPUS..................................................................... 12 A. The Origins of Habeas Corpus: England ................................................. 12 B. Extra-Territorial Application of Habeas Corpus at Common Law.......... 15 C. Early American Habeas Law ................................................................... 17 D. Early American Extension of Habeas Corpus to Aliens and Alien Enemy Combatants .................................................................................. 20 E. American Suspension of Habeas Corpus................................................. 23 F. World War II and the Extension of Habeas Corpus to Enemy Aliens ....................................................................................................... 28 G. Relevant Post-World War II Habeas Developments ............................... 33 H. Adequate and Effective Habeas Substitute.............................................. 37 II. LAWS OF WAR REGARDING ENEMY COMBATANTS PRE- SEPTEMBER 11TH ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Defending the Emergence of the Superior Orders Defense in the Contemporary Context
    Goettingen Journal of International Law 2 (2010) 3, 871-892 Defending the Emergence of the Superior Orders Defense in the Contemporary Context Jessica Liang Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................ 872 A. Introduction .......................................................................................... 872 B. Superior Orders and the Soldier‘s Dilemma ........................................ 872 C. A Brief History of the Superior Orders Defense under International Law ............................................................................................. 874 D. Alternative Degrees of Attributing Criminal Responsibility: Finding the Right Solution to the Soldier‘s Dilemma ..................................... 878 I. Absolute Defense ................................................................................. 878 II. Absolute Liability................................................................................. 880 III.Conditional Liability ............................................................................ 881 1. Manifest Illegality ..................................................................... 881 2. A Reasonableness Standard ...................................................... 885 E. Frontiers of the Defense: Obedience to Civilian Orders? .................... 889 I. Operation under the Rome Statute ....................................................... 889 II. How far should the Defense of Superior Orders
    [Show full text]
  • Retired Military Officers in Support of Petitioners
    Nos. 03-334, 03-343 In the Supreme Court of the United States __________ SHAFIQ RASUL, ET AL., Petitioners, v. GEORGE W. BUSH, ET AL., Respondents. __________ FAWZI KHALID ABDULLAH FAHAD AL ODAH, ET AL., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF RETIRED MILITARY OFFICERS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS MIRNA ADJAMI JAME S C. SCHROEDER Midwest Immigrant and Counsel of Record Human Rights Center GARY A. ISAAC 208 South LaSalle St. STEPHEN J. KANE Chicago, IL 60603 JON M. JUENGER (312) 660-1330 Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP 190 South LaSalle St. Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 782-0600 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE ............1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................2 ARGUMENT .............................3 I. The United States Has Played A Leading Role In Developing International Standards To Safeguard The Rights Of Captured Prisoners. 3 II. The Geneva Conventions And U.S. Military Regulations Implementing The Conventions Require That A Competent Tribunal Determine The Status Of Captured Prisoners. ..........6 III. These Cases Raise Issues Of Extraordinary Significance .........................8 A. The Judicial Branch Has A Duty To Act As A Check On The Executive Branch, Even In Wartime ..................8 B. Failure To Provide Any Judicial Review Of The Government’s Actions Could Have Grave Consequences For U.S. Military Forces Captured In Future Conflicts ..... 11 CONCLUSION ........................... 20 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases: Brown v. United States, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 110 (1814) .............................. 10 Chandler v.
    [Show full text]
  • Excerpt from Elizabeth Borgwardt, the Nuremberg Idea: “Thinking Humanity” in History, Law & Politics, Under Contract with Alfred A
    Excerpt from Elizabeth Borgwardt, The Nuremberg Idea: “Thinking Humanity” in History, Law & Politics, under contract with Alfred A. Knopf. DRAFT of 10/24/16; please do not cite or quote without author’s permission Human Rights Workshop, Schell Center for International Human Rights, Yale Law School November 3, 2016, 12:10 to 1:45 pm, Faculty Lounge Author’s Note: Thank you in advance for any attention you may be able to offer to this chapter in progress, which is approximately 44 double-spaced pages of text. If time is short I recommend starting with the final section, pp. 30-42. I look forward to learning from your reactions and suggestions. Chapter Abstract: This history aims to show how the 1945-49 series of trials in the Nuremberg Palace of Justice distilled the modern idea of “crimes against humanity,” and in the process established the groundwork for the modern international human rights regime. Over the course of the World War II era, a 19th century version of crimes against humanity, which might be rendered more precisely in German as Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit (crimes against “humane-ness”), competed with and was ultimately co-opted by a mid-20th- century conception, translated as Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit (crimes against “human- kind”). Crimes against humaneness – which Hannah Arendt dismissed as “crimes against kindness” – were in effect transgressions against traditional ideas of knightly chivalry, that is, transgressions against the humanity of the perpetrators. Crimes against humankind – the Menschheit version -- by contrast, focused equally on the humanity of victims. Such extreme atrocities most notably denied and attacked the humanity of individual victims (by denying their human rights, or in Arendt’s iconic phrasing, their “right to have rights”).
    [Show full text]
  • THE ARMY LAWYER Headquarters, Department of the Army
    THE ARMY LAWYER Headquarters, Department of the Army Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-50-366 November 2003 Articles Military Commissions: Trying American Justice Kevin J. Barry, Captain (Ret.), U.S. Coast Guard Why Military Commissions Are the Proper Forum and Why Terrorists Will Have “Full and Fair” Trials: A Rebuttal to Military Commissions: Trying American Justice Colonel Frederic L. Borch, III Editorial Comment: A Response to Why Military Commissions Are the Proper Forum and Why Terrorists Will Have “Full and Fair” Trials Kevin J. Barry, Captain (Ret.), U.S. Coast Guard Afghanistan, Quirin, and Uchiyama: Does the Sauce Suit the Gander Evan J. Wallach Note from the Field Legal Cultures Clash in Iraq Lieutenant Colonel Craig T. Trebilcock The Art of Trial Advocacy Preparing the Mind, Body, and Voice Lieutenant Colonel David H. Robertson, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center & School, U.S. Army CLE News Current Materials of Interest Editor’s Note An article in our April/May 2003 Criminal Law Symposium issue, Moving Toward the Apex: New Developments in Military Jurisdiction, discussed the recent ACCA and CAAF opinions in United States v. Sergeant Keith Brevard. These opinions deferred to findings the trial court made by a preponderance of the evidence to resolve a motion to dismiss, specifically that the accused obtained and presented forged documents to procure a fraudulent discharge. Since the publication of these opinions, the court-matial reached the ultimate issue of the guilt of the accused on remand. The court-martial acquitted the accused of fraudulent separation and dismissed the other charges for lack of jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Detainees at Guantanamo Bay
    Order Code RS22173 Updated July 20, 2005 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Detainees at Guantanamo Bay name redacted Legislative Attorney American Law Division Summary After the U.S. Supreme Court held that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear legal challenges on behalf of more than 500 persons detained at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in connection with the war against terrorism, the Pentagon established administrative hearings, called “Combatant Status Review Tribunals” (CSRTs), to allow the detainees to contest their status as enemy combatants. This report provides an overview of the CSRT procedures and summarizes court cases related to the detentions and the use of military commissions. The relevant Supreme Court rulings are discussed in CRS Report RS21884, The Supreme Court and Detainees in the War on Terrorism: Summary and Analysis. This report will be updated as events warrant. In Rasul v. Bush,124 S.Ct. 2686 (2004), a divided Supreme Court declared that “a state of war is not a blank check for the president”and ruled that persons deemed “enemy combatants” have the right to challenge their detention before a judge or other “neutral decision-maker.” The decision reversed the holding of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which had agreed with the Bush Administration that no U.S. court has jurisdiction to hear petitions for habeas corpus by or on behalf of the detainees because they are aliens and are detained outside the sovereign territory of the United States. Lawyers have filed more than a dozen petitions on behalf of some 60 detainees in the District Court for the District of Columbia, where judges have reached opposing conclusions as to whether the detainees have any enforceable rights to challenge their treatment and detention.
    [Show full text]
  • Saddam Hussein
    Saddam Hussein ﺻﺪام ﺣﺴﻴﻦ :Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti (/hʊˈseɪn/;[5] Arabic Marshal Ṣaddām Ḥusayn ʿAbd al-Maǧīd al-Tikrītī;[a] 28 April ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻤﺠﻴﺪ اﻟﺘﻜﺮﻳﺘﻲ 1937[b] – 30 December 2006) was President of Iraq from 16 July 1979 until 9 Saddam Hussein ﺻﺪام ﺣﺴﻴﻦ April 2003.[10] A leading member of the revolutionary Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party, and later, the Baghdad-based Ba'ath Party and its regional organization the Iraqi Ba'ath Party—which espoused Ba'athism, a mix of Arab nationalism and socialism—Saddam played a key role in the 1968 coup (later referred to as the 17 July Revolution) that brought the party to power inIraq . As vice president under the ailing General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, and at a time when many groups were considered capable of overthrowing the government, Saddam created security forces through which he tightly controlled conflicts between the government and the armed forces. In the early 1970s, Saddam nationalized oil and foreign banks leaving the system eventually insolvent mostly due to the Iran–Iraq War, the Gulf War, and UN sanctions.[11] Through the 1970s, Saddam cemented his authority over the apparatus of government as oil money helped Iraq's economy to grow at a rapid pace. Positions of power in the country were mostly filled with Sunni Arabs, a minority that made up only a fifth of the population.[12] Official portrait of Saddam Hussein in Saddam formally rose to power in 1979, although he had already been the de 1979 facto head of Iraq for several years.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuremberg Academy Annual Report 2018
    Annual Report International Nuremberg Principles Academy 1 Imprint The Annual Report 2018 has been Executive Board: published by the International Klaus Rackwitz (Director), Nuremberg Principles Academy. Dr. Viviane Dittrich (Deputy Director) It is available in English, German Edited by: and French and can be ordered Evelyn Müller at [email protected] Layout: or be downloaded on the website Martin Küchle Kommunikationsdesign www.nurembergacademy.org. Photos: Egidienplatz 23 International Nuremberg Principles Academy 90403 Nuremberg, Germany p. 9 Strathmore University, p. 20 Wayamo T + 49 (0) 911.231.10379 Foundation F + 49 (0) 911.231.14020 Printed by: [email protected] Druckwerk oHG Table of Contents 2 Foreword 5 The International Nuremberg Principles Academy 7 A Forum for Dialogue 8 • Events 14 • Network and Cooperation 19 Capacity Building 25 Research 29 Publications and Resources 32 Communications 34 Organization 37 Partners and Sponsors We proudly present the second edition of the Annual Report of the International Nuremberg Principles Academy. It reflects the activities and the achieve­ ments of the Nuremberg Academy throughout the year of 2018. It was another year of growth for the Nu­ Foreword remberg Academy with an increased num­ ber of events and activities at a peak level. Important anniversaries such as the 70th anniversary of the judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo and the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Rome Statute have been reflected in the Academy’s work and activities. Major international conferences – as far as we can see the largest of their kind, dedicated to these important dates worldwide – were held in Nuremberg in May and in October.
    [Show full text]
  • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
    Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court The text of the Rome Statute reproduced herein was originally circulated as document A/CONF.183/9 of 17 July 1998 and corrected by procès-verbaux of 10 November 1998, 12 July 1999, 30 November 1999, 8 May 2000, 17 January 2001 and 16 January 2002. The amendments to article 8 reproduce the text contained in depositary notification C.N.651.2010 Treaties-6, while the amendments regarding articles 8 bis, 15 bis and 15 ter replicate the text contained in depositary notification C.N.651.2010 Treaties-8; both depositary communications are dated 29 November 2010. The table of contents is not part of the text of the Rome Statute adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court on 17 July 1998. It has been included in this publication for ease of reference. Done at Rome on 17 July 1998, in force on 1 July 2002, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2187, No. 38544, Depositary: Secretary-General of the United Nations, http://treaties.un.org. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Published by the International Criminal Court ISBN No. 92-9227-232-2 ICC-PIOS-LT-03-002/15_Eng Copyright © International Criminal Court 2011 All rights reserved International Criminal Court | Po Box 19519 | 2500 CM | The Hague | The Netherlands | www.icc-cpi.int Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Table of Contents PREAMBLE 1 PART 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COURT 2 Article 1 The Court 2 Article 2 Relationship of the Court with the United Nations 2 Article 3 Seat of the Court 2 Article 4 Legal status and powers of the Court 2 PART 2.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Outline the Scope of the 'Nuremberg Principles'. What Is
    NALSAR PROXIMATE EDUCATION NALSAR UNIVERSITY OF LAW, HYDERABAD P.G.DIPLOMA IN INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW 2012-13 PAPER IV – IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW Time: 3 hours Marks: 100 INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES 1. The questions must be interpreted as given and no clarification can be sought from the invigilator. 2. Students may be permitted to carry the bare text of the instruments and the codes. 3. Marks are indicated against each question. 4. Clearly indicate the Question numbers. 5. ANSWER ANY FIVE QUESTIONS including Question No. 8 1. Outline the scope of the ‘Nuremberg Principles’. What is their influence on the development of International Humanitarian Law relating to protection of Civilians during armed conflict? Specifically, examine their influence in the light of the Additional Protocols, 1977 to the Geneva Conventions, 1949. Substantiate your answer with suitable examples. (Marks 20) 2. Outline the importance of ‘Individual Criminal Responsibility’ in the implementation of International Humanitarian Law. How far the International Ad-hoc Criminal Tribunals have successfully resorted to this Principle in dealing with the Accused of Crimes against Humanity? Illustrate your answer with suitable examples. (Marks 20) 3. What is the role of the International Committee of Red Cross in the development of the International Humanitarian Law? Explain its role with reference to the development of safeguards to an accused during the Criminal Trial. (Marks 20) 4. What is the scope of protection to environment during armed conflict? How far, the provisions of IHL in association with the ENMOD Convention are adequate to safeguard the environment? Provide suitable illustration to support your answer.
    [Show full text]